APHC010302022014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2074 OF 2014 Between: 1. Padimi Naga Trinadha Srinivasa Rao, S/o Madhava Rao Aged about 48 years Typist/Junior Sales Manager The AP State Handloom Weavers, Co- operative Society Ltd. APCO Fabrics Rajahmundry, East Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. G Gouri Sankar, The Vice Chairman & Managing Director The AP State Handloom Weavers, Co-Operative Society Ltd. Weavers Bhavan, 3-5-770 Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: V PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioner and Sri B. Jaya Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent. 2. The Contempt Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case seeking regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department dated 22.04.1994. 2 3. The prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under : <…… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing my services and not paying the regular scale of pay attached to the post of Typist/Junior Sales Manager as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of the principles of Natural Justice and consequently declare that I am entitled for regularization of services and payment of time scale attached to the post of Typist/Junior Sales Manager and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case=. 4. The above prayer would indicate that the Petitioner has sought regularization of service and also for payment of time scale attached to the post of Typist/Sales Manager. Learned Single Judge of this Court, having heard the matter, vide Order dated 24.02.2012 in W.P.No.10024 of 2011 was pleased to pass the following Order: <The settled legal position is that when once an employee has been reinstated as per the orders of the prescribed authority/Tribunal or Labour Court, he is deemed to have been in service from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement. Accordingly, the petitioner is deemed to have been in service from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement and in the above circumstances, the petitioner is deemed to have been engaged as daily wage worker on NMR basis in the category of Typist from 16.07.1987 onwards. If that date is taken into consideration, the petitioner has completed more than 5 years of period as required in terms of the above referred GO. Even daily wage workers are also entitled for the benefit as per the said GO. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefits accrued to the petitioner. The respondents are not expected to interpret the orders of the authorities according to their whims and fancies and deny the benefits to an employee. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are directed to pass consequential orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.= 5. The above Order indicates that the Writ Petitioner is deemed to have been in service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and is deemed to have been engaged as daily wage worker on NMR basis in the category of Typist from 16.07.1987 onwards, and therefore, the Writ Petitioner is entitled for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning 3 Department dated 22.04.1994. The Official Respondents have filed Writ Appeal No.760 of 2012. That was also dismissed on 20.06.2012. The Official Respondents have also filed SLP (C) CC No.11472 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on 01.08.2014. 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge has attained finality. When the Respondent did not either regularize the services of the Petitioner or pay the salary as per the pay scales, he had filed the present Contempt Case. 7. The Respondent has filed the Counter Affidavit on 30.01.2015 along with the Proceeding of the Managing Director of the Respondent Society. This Proceeding indicates that the Petitioner’s services have been regularized in terms of the Order passed by this Court dated 24.12.2012. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent has also issued Proceeding on 11.08.2015, but the same was not placed on record. He would also submit that the Respondent has not paid the pay scale from the date of regularization. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent is paying pay scale to the Petitioner only from the date of the Order of the Writ Petition i.e., 24.02.2012 but not from the date of regularization i.e., from 25.11.1993. 9. From a perusal of the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the prayer, it does not appear to the Court that the Petitioner had prayed for payment of pay scale from the date of regularization. The Respondents have paid pay scale from 24.02.2012 onwards that is from the date of Order in W.P.No.10024 of 2011. In view of the fact that the said prayer has not been made, the action of the Respondents in paying the pay scale from 24.02.2012 onwards would not amount to Contempt of Court, inasmuch as this Court cannot expand the scope of relief while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. This apart, in terms of the averments of the Affidavit filed in 4 support of the Writ Petition, Respondents have rightly regularized the services of the Petitioner by following the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department dated 22.04.1994 from 25.11.1993. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents have complied with the Order of this Court. In case, the Petitioner is demanding the payment of pay scale from 25.11.1993 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that such relief cannot granted in the present Contempt Case because the Petition does not carry any averment to that effect. Similarly, the prayer in the Writ Petition also does not seek for payment of pay scale from the date of regularization, particularly having regard to the fact that it has been noted by the Learned Single Judge that the services of the Petitioner were terminated in between. The Writ Petitioner is at liberty to avail other legal remedies for claiming the arrears of pay scale from the date of regularization, if so advised. 11. With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case stands closed. No order as to costs. 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 12.11.2025 JKS 5 82 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2074 OF 2014 12.11.2025 JKS